Massive Hike In Fees For Venues Playing Music In The UK

from the this-won't-help dept

We've seen this time and time again. The various music collection societies around the globe have been trying to squeeze out more and more cash -- either by extending what counts as a "public performance" or by massively jacking up the rates on existing licensees. We saw this recently in Australia, where rates went up by ridiculous amounts. To a lesser extent, we've seen something similar in Canada with its 1,300% fee increase. And, now, something similar is coming to the UK, where PPL massively increased a bunch of its fees:

Bills for a typical ­wedding bash will soar from £30 to £380. Pubs which can now pay as little as £8 a night will have to fork out around £10,000 a year up front for a public ­performance licence.

The fee for nightclubs will zoom from £167 to a mind-boggling £6,667 for each event.

If you're playing along at home, that last case describes a fee increase of 3,900%.

Now, for the most part, such collectives are passing money on directly to musicians, and not to record labels or the like. So you could argue that this means that musicians make more money, so perhaps it's okay. But that's not taking into account the overall impact of such fee increases. They actually harm musicians in multiple ways. First, as you would expect with such a massive increase in fees, many venues simply stop agreeing to pay a license to play music. Many may just not play music at all any more, and what good does that do any musician? Fewer venues playing music isn't helping anyone. It also means that a lot more of these kinds of venues end up going out of business. We keep hearing stories of people complaining about fewer venues being around for music these days, and you can blame ridiculous price hikes like this one for that.

Re: Re: Extortion

i think the best bet is for everyone to simply stop having anything to do with everything entertainment industry related. they dont want people to play music, watch films or anything else unless extortionate prices are paid. they dont want people to be able to enjoy themselves. they obviously want to keep everything to themselves and are doing as much as they can to achieve that. so let 'em keep the lot! governments are backing what is going on, so let them pay all the fees and wages wanted!

Funny how

The record labels are desperate to get their new songs played on the radio/clubs/pubs as it is the way to reach a huge audience and drive sales, and then demand payment for the privilege of allowing these outlet to play their songs.

It is just as if, for example, Pepsi are desperate for the lead actor to be seen drinking a can of Pepsi in the latest blockbuster film as it is a superb advertisement for their product, and then demanding a cut of every DVD rental.

Is there now way of pointing out to these clowns just what is driving the sales of their products. Just in case any one of these Record executives are listening, let me point it out very simply.

I buy one of your products because I have heard it on the radio/in a club/down the shops. If I never get exposed to your product, I AM NOT GOING TO BUY IT.

Re: Re: Funny how

Radio actually does not pay the record companies to play music, they charge the record companies to play music. It is all done through the magic of payola. The fees to a radio station can be anything, the record companies are paying.

Re:

Having spent several decades in the Hospitality business, I think I would immediately start to research live bands that write their own music. The contract would state, no cover songs, no music you did not write yourself and own the copyright and performance rights to.

Obviously this could not happen overnight, and has numerous issues, such as a request for an old favorite, which would have to be refused, incensing the guest. Not very hospitable.

A long time ago, we had a fight with (either ASCAP or BMI, I forget) about our MUZAK system. They collected from MUZAK and now wanted to collect from us as well. It took much too much management time (we were running a business, our managers worked), which did not recoup even when we won.

The slim margins in the Hospitality business (lets leave out the casino portion for now) do not allow for a large percentage of Gross sales for entertainment. The idea of paying this extortion in order to differentiate oneself from competitors should be frightening to anyone who holds an interest in ANY Hospitality operation.

Shoddy and sensationalist journalism!

As much as it would definitely be insanely ludacris for PPL to increase their fees by as much as their consultation document suggests (around 2000% in some cases). It is just as irresponsible for journalists to play down or, as was done in this article, totally ignore the fact that PPL is in the consultation stages of this process. This does not mean that the rates they are proposing is what will be charged at the end of the day, or, again as this article reports, is currently being charged! To a point I'm as anti-G.A.M.E. as the next person, but I still try to be fair and honest when passing on the facts.

Re: Money to Musicians

PPL is for record labels

PPL's members are mainly record labels, it licenses things related to the copyright in the sound recording which is usually owned by the record label. PRS/MCPS is the equivalent for the copyright in the musical work (i.e. the composition) and it's members are mainly musicians, song writers and publishers. How much of these fees actually ends up with artists depends on their particular recording contract and/or whether they own the copyright in the sound recording.

Re: Call to pub goers in the UK

Leaving PPL and PRS

funnily enough its the fact that i am a memnber of PPL and PRS that i cannot submit my music to Jamendo Pro. I emailed PRS about wanting to leave them last year, their reply: 'You need to send us a signed letter requesting that we terminate your membership and giving us a brief explanation of why you wish to leave and what collection society you wish to join.' has sat in my intray for a year. But after the ACTA thing and getting an email from PPL braying about how great it was for artists (the dead ones getting an extra 20 years to produce more art from beyond the grave) i dug up the email and am hoping to get round to writing it today. The answer to 'what collection society you wish to join' will of course be none.

Re: Leaving PPL and PRS

what business is it of theirs or anyone's why you want to leave? it is your decision to terminate membership and you're within your rights to do so when you want (assuming you didn't sign a contract that prevents you from leaving within a certain time frame?). as for requesting? i think telling is nearer the mark!

i think a brief explanation would be 'i wish to terminate my membership with your organisation, effective immediately,' (give the date).

"The fee for nightclubs will zoom from £167 to a mind-boggling £6,667 for each event."

This is the most ridiculous increase by far. I mean seriously, how much profit do they think nightclubs make an event? The answer is almost certainly not not 6,000+ dollars. Seriously, does someone have some moral (or religious) vendetta against nightclubs and want to drive them all out of business simply because they don't like the nightclub business and how they perceive nightclubs are effecting the community?

I read this story and I had to laugh. Mike, you have opened up a can of worms on this one.

First up, let's talk about the "shortage" of live music venues. This sort of goes against your whole idea of giving away the music and collecting on the scarce, the "musician as a worker" mentality that would have them doing hundreds of shows a year to make a living. If the venues are disappearing, it's because there isn't enough demand at a reasonable price to make it work out. So if there is a shortage of live venues, but live show revenue is going up, it's ticket prices that have increased dramatically, no?

Second, while you do provide a link to an article, the article itself is lacking any and all detail. The example "67 to 1600" increase, what sort of venue? Is it a single venue? Is it because of a change of vocation? Are they moving from recorded music only to live performance? We don't know because there are no details, and nobody else seems to be talking about the story.

Third, I think what you are seeing is the birds of piracy coming home to roost. If you aren't paying for the music to buy, you will end up paying for it somewhere else. Licensing is one of those ways to get the money back lost on the other side. Remember the old "there is no such thing as a free lunch"? Well, more so here, you choose what to have for your free lunch, and it comes with an expensive desert. You earned it!

As a sub-text on all this, I would say that my opinions voiced a couple of years back appear to be true. Significant increases in "live" ticket sale revenue has little to do with huge increases in live shows, rather it has everything to do with top acts charging 3 - 10 times as much for their tickets. So much for the little starving artist getting more money, right Mike?

Re:

Or a bunch of people pricing themselves out of each section of the market as they kill a successive series of golden-egg-laying geese in an effort to retain an unretainable market dominance are moving their efforts along to the next goose in the series...

Re: Re: Re:

I'm not a regular but I've never paid more than £30 (c$45) for a ticket in the UK. Though I'll admit I don't go to any big name concerts. I guess it all depends on what you are looking to see.

I do agree that Mike's use of language was a little sloppy but my reading of the "venues" comment was in respect of places which play recorded music rather than those that have live music. His comments about live music have generally been about how strong it seems to be these days. I could be wrong though.

Re: Re: Re:

You're on smack. Seriously.

Within the last year, I've been to concerts at the MEN, the Liverpool Echo, and the Lowry. They cost at most £35, which is currently around $55, and I KNOW that they can go higher. The fact that the venue is being charged (in the MEN's case) around £450,000 for next year's license for artists to play their own music is mind-boggling.

Re:

at what point are you going to realize that piracy is copyrights' fault, and nobody else?

I already have enough music to create a 24/7/365 streaming playlist that doesn't start over for 5 years.

I already have enough movies to watch 2 a night and not start over for 5 years.

I already have enough tv shows (with no commercials mind you) like Space 1999 (try and buy that one!), M*A*S*H*, all the way up to Enterprise, Stargate Universe and True Blood to watch 5 episodes a night and not start over for 6 years.

That's;
Songs: 3,693,800
Movies: 3,650
VT Shows: 10,950

For willful infringement, I can see where the 58 billion number comes from, I owe $27,703,500,00

PPL = Phonographic Performance Licenses

Since these licenses are to play recorded music I would think the price increase would encourage the hiring of cheap live musicians instead. That would obviously be to the advantage of those musicians, but bad for those members of PPL who charge higher fees or don't play live at all...

So I'm at home...

Do I have to pay when I have friends over? How about if I own a restaurant and live upstairs and just leave my stereo on really loud? Is there a law against playing music near an establishment as opposed to in it?

Re: So I'm at home...

In the UK you won't have to pay if you have a private party, as long as you don't charge an entry fee or invite too many people "too many" is a number decided by PPL or PRS when they decide to take you to court.

If you leave your radio on really loud in your flat above your restaurant then you are liable and would need to pay PPL and PRS.